Lawmakers re-up push for short-term rental taxes to fund housing, education
Between April 2022 and 2023, Maine had almost 24,000 rental properties with at least one reservation, according to a statewide housing study. (Maine Morning Star)
Though several legislative attempts to institute taxes on short-term rentals have failed, Democratic lawmakers are trying again this session to institute these surcharges on vacation properties, specifically to support affordable housing for permanent residents and education.
Among these proposals being heard Wednesday in the Taxation Committee is the second iteration of a plan from Rep. Charles Skold (D-Portland). His bill, LD 632, would allow a municipality to impose a local option sales tax of 2% on short-term lodging that is subject to the state sales and use tax, if approved by voters in that municipality.
This is higher than the 1% sales tax on such properties Skold proposed last year in legislation that failed to gain support on the floor after narrowly being backed by the Taxation Committee by a one-vote margin.
Similar to his previous proposal, Skold's bill would require that the revenue the tax generates be used for affordable housing in that municipality.
The regulation of short-term rentals, such as Airbnbs, in Maine has largely fallen to municipalities, with cities such as Portland, Rockland and Bar Harbor taking it upon themselves to pass local rules.
Portland lawmaker proposes funding affordable housing with short-term rental tax
While noting the importance of short-term lodging on the state's economy, Skold and others supportive of his plan last year, including residents along the coast, argued that each housing unit converted into a short-term rental takes away units from individuals and families who would like to stay in Maine full time but who are currently being driven away by a lack of housing supply and high prices.
'This bill does not detract at all from the importance of short-term lodging in our economy, but it allows municipalities heavily impacted by this trend to recover some benefit and use that revenue to help meet their own housing needs,' Skold testified at the time.
But real estate, tourist groups and the state's Department of Administrative and Financial Services opposed Skold's proposed tax, arguing it could deter tourists because of higher costs or disadvantage businesses in the communities that choose to enact the tax.
There were also concerns over the constitutionality of the bill. DAFS testified that any local sales tax should be structured with the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. in mind, which noted the importance of a simple tax system when imposing sales tax on remote sellers.
Other versions of a short-term rental sales tax are being considered this year, too.
Rep. Gary Friedmann (D-Bar Harbor) also proposed a bill to permit municipalities to impose a 2% sales tax on short-term lodging, if approved by referendum, to be used for affordable housing.
However, Friedmann's bill, LD 746, would require 10% of revenue generated to be transferred to the Maine State Housing Authority to be used to provide subsidies through the rural affordable rental housing program or another program that supports affordable housing development in rural communities, specifically.
While differing on the specifics, Skold and Friedmann's proposals to use this tax for affordable housing differ from how Rep. Michael Brennan (D-Portland) is seeking to use revenue generated from such a tax.
Brennan proposed LD 225, which would create a higher tax, an additional 3% sales tax on the value of rental living quarters in a hotel or other lodging, with its revenue reserved for the Maine Department of Education to fund school construction and K-12 education.
Earlier efforts to institute statewide regulations on short term rentals have attempted to impose fees, rather than a tax. That was the case for a bill from Rep. Tiffany Strout (R-Harrington) last session, as well as another bill in the session before last that specifically tried to place fees on second homes unoccupied by a permanent resident. Both bills died.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat
California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to threats over the weekend by the Trump administration that he could be arrested if he interferes with ICE arrests of undocumented immigrants. 'He's a tough guy, why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' Newsom said during an interview with MSNBC News on Sunday. The governor also issued some strong statements toward the president and his administration's crackdown on immigration. 'But, you know what? Lay your hands off 4-year-old girls that are trying to get educated. Lay your hands off these poor people that are just trying to live their lives, man. Trying to live their lives, paying their taxes … been here 10 years,' Newsom said. The governor's comments come in response to threats by Trump's 'border czar,' Tom Homan, to arrest anyone who obstructs the immigration enforcement effort, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, NBC News reported. 'I'll say about anybody,' Homan told the television network. 'You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' For her part, Bass said Homan's comments were unnecessary. 'I spoke to him last night. He understands that I am the mayor of the city; the last thing in the world I'm going to do is get into a brawl with the federal government. So that just made no sense. There was no reason for that comment,' she told NBC News. Newsom and other Democratic leaders have criticized Trump's use of the National Guard in trying to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent in Los Angeles over the weekend, saying the escalation in force will only lead to further trouble. Newsom also announced plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated he would be willing to bring in the U.S. Marines if he felt the situation called for it. Trump also backed up Homan's warning to officials, saying they will 'face judges' if they stand in the way. 'Who the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom responded. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House budget request slashes funding for tribal colleges and universities
In President Donald Trump's budget request, he's proposing slashing funding for tribal colleges and universities, including eliminating support for the country's only federally funded college for contemporary Native American arts. If the budget is approved by Congress, beginning in October, the more than $13 million in annual appropriations for the Institute for American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico, would be reduced to zero. It would be the first time in nearly 40 years that the congressionally chartered school would not receive federal support, said Robert Martin, the school's president. 'You can't wipe out 63 years of our history and what we've accomplished with one budget,' Martin said on Friday. 'I just can't understand or comprehend why they would do something like this.' The college, founded in 1962, has provided affordable education to thousands of Native artists and culture bearers, including U.S. poet laureate Joy Harjo, painter T.C. Cannon and bestselling novelist Tommy Orange. It's the only four-year degree fine arts institution in the world devoted to contemporary Native American and Alaskan Native arts, according to its website. Martin said he has spoken with members of Congress from both major political parties who have assured him they'll work to keep the institute's budget level for the next fiscal year, but he worries the morale of students and staff will be affected. Martin said he also spoke with staff in the office of U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Cole, a Republican and former member of IAIA's board of trustees and a longtime advocate in Congress for funding that supports tribal citizens, was unavailable for comment. Breana Brave Heart, a junior studying arts and business, said the proposal shocked her and made her wonder: 'Will I be able to continue my education at IAIA with these budget cuts?' Brave Heart said she started organizing with other students to contact members of Congress. 'IAIA is under attack," she said, "and I need other students to know this.' Martin said that amid the Republican Trump administration's crackdown on federal policies and funding that support diversity, equity and inclusion, trust responsibilities and treaty rights owed to tribal nations have also come under attack. 'It's a problem for us and many other organizations when you've got that DEI initiative which really is not applicable to us, because we're not a racial category, we're a political status as a result of the treaties," he said. 'We're easily identified as what this administration might refer to as a 'woke'.' Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico said the cuts are another example of the Trump administration 'turning its back on Native communities and breaking our trust responsibilities.' "As a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I remain committed to keeping IAIA fully funded and will continue working with appropriators and the New Mexico Congressional Delegation to ensure its future,' Luján said in a statement to The Associated Press. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The congressional budget bill includes roughly $3.75 trillion in tax cuts, extending the expiring 2017 individual income tax breaks and temporarily adding new ones that Trump campaigned on. The revenue loss would be partially offset by nearly $1.3 trillion in reduced federal spending elsewhere, namely through Medicaid and food assistance. A Jan. 30 order from the Interior Department titled 'Ending DEI Programs and Gender Ideology Extremism' stated that any efforts to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion in the department's policy should exclude trust obligations to tribal nations. However, earlier this year, several staff members at the other two congressionally chartered schools in the country — the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas — were laid off as part of Trump's push to downsize the federal workforce. In a lawsuit filed in March, both institutions reported that some staff and faculty were rehired, but the Bureau of Indian Education notified those people that might be temporary and they may be laid off again. 'It shows what a president's values and priorities are, and that's been hard,' said Ahniwake Rose, president of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, an organization that represents more than 30 Tribal Colleges and Universities. "That's been hard for our staff, our students, our faculty to see that the priority of the administration through the Department of Interior might not be on tribal colleges." In its budget request this year, the Interior Department is proposing reducing funding to the BIE's post secondary programs by more than 80%, and that would have a devastating affect on tribal colleges and universities, or TCUs, which rely on the federal government for most of their funding, said Rose. Most TCUs offer tribal citizens a tuition-free higher education, she said, and funding them is a moral and fiduciary responsibility the federal government owes tribal nations. In the many treaties the U.S. signed with tribal nations, it outlined several rights owed to them — like land rights, health care and education through departments established later, like the BIE. Trust responsibilities are the legal and moral obligations the U.S. has to protect and uphold those rights. The Interior Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
